« What the Supreme Court Justices do | Main | Climate converts »

May 28, 2007



Obama should portray the spelling as a pun. McCain may've physically been wearing a flak jacket but he did so in order to flack for the Bush administration.


OT but related: the consensus in the comments seems to be you're wildly off in your views in this post:


Just curious if you ever go back and revist posts from a day or more ago, or if you have and still think your perspective in that post was reasonable.



Anon: I'll take your blogname to mean 'a not', which would be more accurate than saying the consensus in Brian's post on John Dickerson's views on familty privacy was that Brian was 'wildly off in his views'.

The first comment just copied Dickerson's last two paragraphs, that's not an agreement or disagreement with Brian in my mind.

The second comment was Andrew's that called Brian a dumb ass and said he didn't read the piece, which in his mind was amazing.

The third comment was someone with a name identical to yours (coincidence?) Without evidence, you indicated that 'all evidence of toolage was pointing your (Brian's) way. Then, you said "Try not to read with a preconceived [???] of what you are about to read. What do you see in Brian's post that he had a preconceived anything?

The fourth comment was mine, and it could and should be read as supportive of what Brian said.

The fifth comment was another Anon (could it be the same Anon as comment #3? suggesting that Dickerson was engaging in sarcasm that Brian and I didn't get because it wasn't marked with smilies.

So then, is this the 'consensus' you mentioned. One neutral, two negative and one positive? A majority, perhaps, but hardly a consensus. A major of two to one with three opinions doesn't mean much.

If Dickerson was engaging in saracasm in his overall piece, he didn't seem to hint at that in the one paragraph that both Brian and I quoted, and two which we both responded. What was your clue that this paragraph wasn't intended to be straight, non-sarcastic opinion?

I think Brian was right to pick on this and of course I uphold my right to do so as well, since I don't believe, contrary to Dickerson, in an unqualified right of the families of politicians to some right of privacy when they allow their families active political roles.

I think you owe Brian an apology. I guess you are not much worried about developing a reputation for bitchiness around your blogname, since Anon's are a dime per barrel. (I was going to remark that you'll give Anon a bad name in blogs, but that might be interpreted as sarcastic).


Jim, you're awesome! Either way, I responded to the handful of critics, whether they were one person or four. Oh, which reminds me! I should go check the IP stats on those anons!


You're totally right Jim. All the anons are the same. I guess I just succumbed to concern trolling? Do I have the terminology right?

Patrick T. Cunningham

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary shows that "flack" is an acceptable variant of "flak." Numerous Defense Dept. publications use "flack."


Well I don't want to take this post off topic -- I was hoping you could address the issues in that post.

No, you don't have the terminology right (nor can you count!). I posted once there, then once again after Jim's comment, and then once here to ask you to check back there. That's not concern trolling, that's just checking back to see if the author has something to say.

Jim/Brian, you really don't get sarcasm do you? The first post that repeated Dickerson's last two paragraphs? Why do you think that poster posted that? He wasn't being neutral -- what a waste of time! He was repeating those paragraphs so you could reread them.

What is the tip he wasn't being straight? Look at the other parenthetical: "(Another horse head, or maybe Gitmo.)". He is not saying that Cheney said that, is he? He is being sarcastic.

You two are not the only smart people on the planet. Dickerson and even anons are pretty smart too. Look at his sentence and then the parenthetical that directly opposes everything he just said in the sentence: "Their daughters didn't ask to enter the political echo chamber, and so they shouldn't be forced to live in it. (Though, the Bush twins did speak at the 2004 Republican convention, and a Cheney daughter worked at the State Department.)"

Brian/Jim, you are not the only people to realize that Jenna and not Jenna spoke, and that Cheney's daughter was not some political virgin.

Dickerson is saying the exact same thing.

Here's a commenter at Slate's discuss that also agree's Dickerson was writing tongue in cheek (to mix a metaphor.)


What do I see in Brian's writing that he read this with a preconceived understanding? Well, Ezra and Matthew assure me that Brian isn't a tool, and I believe them. So if Brian is acting like a tool, Occam's Razor tells me that there is something weird going on. I suspect that is that he's not getting the sarcasm in the piece. Not getting sarcasm is a same someone is dumb or missing the point. I would prefer to think it's the latter, which leads me to ask, why is a smart guy like Brian missing the point? Most likely because he did not let himself be open to seeing the point.

As for you Jim, you seem like a genuinely dumb individual.


Brian, where did you respond to any of the critics?


I see you did write another post. Maybe you're new at this "blogging" thing. It is customary, but not mandatory, when writing a new post referencing an older post, to mark the older post in some fashion and point to the new post.

Here I'll add a "smiley" so you know that I am gently teasing you. :)

But honestly, I think you are both missing out on the humor/sarcasm/irony of Dickerson's original post. :(

Keep up with this "blogging" and "reading" and soon you can skip the "smileys." They are like training wheels.

Good luck! :)


Actually, I'd rather hear Obama say "We don't need a spelling bee finalist, we need someone who understands the seriousness of the situation in Iraq and can act in a responsible manner."


"Leadership isn't pointing out others mistakes, it's changing course to better the results of those mistakes."


I think

"100 soldiers with machine guns" would be better than "100 soldiers with rifles"


Thank you for you work! Good Luck.


Thanks a bunch!




This site truly amazing!!!



The comments to this entry are closed.